and with the Marlins playing like sh*t, lets talk awards.

 

AL MVP is a 3 player race between A-Gon, Granderson, and Verlander imo. I know the idea of a pitcher winning the MVP is frowned upon by many, but Detroit wouldn't be where they are without Verlander. And of course he has been great.

 

NL MVP candidates should include Braun, Fielder, Berkman, Justin Upton, and Matt Kemp imo. Personally, I believe Braun will take home the hardware, but not without stiff competition from Justin Upton.

 

AL Cy Young...Verlander or Weaver. Most likely Verlander imo.

 

NL Cy Young...Halladay, Kershaw, and Lincecum could each win it. I'm personally rooting for Kershaw because it doesn't seem like he gets much credit, considering the great year he's having.

 

AL ROY....Helleckson seems like the popular choice. Mark Trumbo is having a solid rookie year as well.

 

NL ROY....Kimbrel or Freeman

Hopefully Adrian Gonzalez wins the AL MVP $$$

 

Doubt he wins it, but surely Ian Kennedy of the Diamondbacks must be included in the NL Cy Young discussions. He is currently on pace to finish 19-4 (has 15 wins atm) with a 3.09 ERA and 190 K's in approx 220 innings.

I'd entertain Verlander for AL MVP. It's hard for me to choose a Boston or New York guy because they both have so many superstars. It's hard for me to choose Bautista because the Blue Jays are so irrelevant.

 

NL MVP has to be one of the two Brewers. I like to give the MVP to a player on a WC or division leading team, especially those teams that aren't making the playoffs year after year. Votto was the obvious choice last season.

 

The Cy Youngs are pretty tough. There are a few solid candidates in both leagues.

Will be interesting to see what happens with Braun and Fielder and if they take votes away from each other. I predicted Prince at the beginning of the year but Braun is having one helluva year.

If Matt Kemp and Lance Berkman are candidates in the NL, Jose Bautista should definitely be a candidate in the AL.

I hate MVP award discussions. Saying Bautista isn't a candidate because his team isn't good is so against what the award is; Most Valuable Player. We're telling Jose Bautista, "Hey, I know you're essentially having the best individual season in baseball since Barry Bonds retired, but you play in the toughest division in baseball and your team is rebuilding, so you can't win this individual award."

 

Adrian Gonzalez is having a really awesome season. Jose Bautista is having one of the 75 best offensive seasons in baseball history. He has a 194 OPS+. The other guys who have ended a season with a 194 OPS+ are Ty Cobb (twice), Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Harry Heilman, and Denny Lyons.

 

But the Blue Jays are 11th in the AL in runs allowed, so he can't be MVP. I really hate that.

I hate MVP award discussions. Saying Bautista isn't a candidate because his team isn't good is so against what the award is; Most Valuable Player. We're telling Jose Bautista, "Hey, I know you're essentially having the best individual season in baseball since Barry Bonds retired, but you play in the toughest division in baseball and your team is rebuilding, so you can't win this individual award."

 

Adrian Gonzalez is having a really awesome season. Jose Bautista is having one of the 75 best offensive seasons in baseball history. He has a 194 OPS+. The other guys who have ended a season with a 194 OPS+ are Ty Cobb (twice), Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Harry Heilman, and Denny Lyons.

 

But the Blue Jays are 11th in the AL in runs allowed, so he can't be MVP. I really hate that.

 

 

Couldn't agree more. But I see another thing that holds Bautista back is the whole Blue Jay sign stealing thing.

 

I hope it doesn't though. Because his home/away splits are damn near identical!

The MVP "criteria" is rather ambiguous, but it is clearly not intended to simply be the "overall best player in the league" award.

 

These are supposedly the guidelines that have been in place since 1931:

 

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense. 2. Number of games played. 3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort. 4. Former winners are eligible. 5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

 

In other words, it pretty much means what any given person wants it to mean. However, if the award was indisputably intended to honor the best overall player, it would have been worded as such.

 

Having said that, I certainly think that Bautista warrants serious consideration because there has been precedence for players on bad teams having awesome seasons receive the award (A-Rod comes to mind as one). If I had to choose one offensive player for the award, Bautista would probably be my guy.

I do remember Andre Dawson won the MVP in I believe 1987 with the Cubs being in last place.

There are always exceptions.

The problem with Dawson getting it isn't that he was on a last place team, but in my opinion he wasn't the "best" or most "valuable" player that season.

 

Jack Clark probably should have gotten it. He was arguably the best offensive player in the league that year (176 OPS+ compared to Dawson's 130). Dawson probably won out because of the home runs and about 100 more PA.

The problem with Dawson getting it isn't that he was on a last place team, but in my opinion he wasn't the "best" or most "valuable" player that season.

 

Jack Clark probably should have gotten it. He was arguably the best offensive player in the league that year (176 OPS+ compared to Dawson's 130). Dawson probably won out because of the home runs and about 100 more PA.

 

The PA's may have been the difference. I wasn't alive then, so I can't really comment on it. Stats don't tell the whole story, as you know. heh

You never know, if Clark gets those extra hundred plate appearances, that OPS+ may drop a lot.

Hopefully Adrian Gonzalez wins the AL MVP $$$

 

Doubt he wins it, but surely Ian Kennedy of the Diamondbacks must be included in the NL Cy Young discussions. He is currently on pace to finish 19-4 (has 15 wins atm) with a 3.09 ERA and 190 K's in approx 220 innings.

 

Should definitely be in the mix but I think Clayton Kershaw will win hands down, 16-5 with a 2.51 ERA with over 200 strikeouts on a bad Dodgers team.

The problem with Dawson getting it isn't that he was on a last place team, but in my opinion he wasn't the "best" or most "valuable" player that season.

 

Jack Clark probably should have gotten it. He was arguably the best offensive player in the league that year (176 OPS+ compared to Dawson's 130). Dawson probably won out because of the home runs and about 100 more PA.

 

The PA's may have been the difference. I wasn't alive then, so I can't really comment on it. Stats don't tell the whole story, as you know. heh

You never know, if Clark gets those extra hundred plate appearances, that OPS+ may drop a lot.

If I'm a voter, those extra PAs don't bother me much. I bet if Clark went on a massive slump over those 100 PA, he still would have had a much better stat line than Dawson had because the gap was that large.

 

Another name that I would have supported over Dawson that year was Ozzie Smith. That was the best offensive year of Smith's career (.392 OBP) and his defense gave him one of the highest WARs in the league.

AL MVP: Bautista

AL Cy: Verlander

AL RotY: Pineda

NL MVP: Braun

NL Cy: Hallady

NL Roty: Kinbrel

If Jose Bautista doesn't win the MVP, I riot.

If Jose Bautista doesn't win the MVP, I riot.

 

At first I thought you said "I quit".

I got excited

I think Bautista has a good shot. It's really difficult to designate one of the New York or Boston players as most "valuable" because both teams are stacked with offense. You can't really say that there is one particular player alone elevating those teams.

 

I think that if Bautista loses it will be to Verlander.

If Jose Bautista doesn't win the MVP, I riot.

 

At first I thought you said "I quit".

I got excited

 

I almost liked your post Rab.

 

You almost did it.

The problem with Dawson getting it isn't that he was on a last place team, but in my opinion he wasn't the "best" or most "valuable" player that season.

 

Jack Clark probably should have gotten it. He was arguably the best offensive player in the league that year (176 OPS+ compared to Dawson's 130). Dawson probably won out because of the home runs and about 100 more PA.

 

The PA's may have been the difference. I wasn't alive then, so I can't really comment on it. Stats don't tell the whole story, as you know. heh

You never know, if Clark gets those extra hundred plate appearances, that OPS+ may drop a lot.

If I'm a voter, those extra PAs don't bother me much. I bet if Clark went on a massive slump over those 100 PA, he still would have had a much better stat line than Dawson had because the gap was that large.

 

Another name that I would have supported over Dawson that year was Ozzie Smith. That was the best offensive year of Smith's career (.392 OBP) and his defense gave him one of the highest WARs in the league.

 

It's not about who had the best stat line over the time they played. If you missed 100 PA's, that takes down from your value to your team. I'd say a player would have to be truly head and shoulders better than everyone else to win the MVP in a season where they missed time or missed a lot a PA's.

double post

The problem with Dawson getting it isn't that he was on a last place team, but in my opinion he wasn't the "best" or most "valuable" player that season.

 

Jack Clark probably should have gotten it. He was arguably the best offensive player in the league that year (176 OPS+ compared to Dawson's 130). Dawson probably won out because of the home runs and about 100 more PA.

 

The PA's may have been the difference. I wasn't alive then, so I can't really comment on it. Stats don't tell the whole story, as you know. heh

You never know, if Clark gets those extra hundred plate appearances, that OPS+ may drop a lot.

If I'm a voter, those extra PAs don't bother me much. I bet if Clark went on a massive slump over those 100 PA, he still would have had a much better stat line than Dawson had because the gap was that large.

 

Another name that I would have supported over Dawson that year was Ozzie Smith. That was the best offensive year of Smith's career (.392 OBP) and his defense gave him one of the highest WARs in the league.

 

It's not about who had the best stat line over the time they played. If you missed 100 PA's, that takes down from your value to your team. I'd say a player would have to be truly head and shoulders better than everyone else to win the MVP in a season where they missed time or missed a lot a PA's.

This doesn't make sense.

 

Obviously a player who has 100 more PAs is more valuable than someone else if there numbers are equal or similar.

 

However, since Clark's numbers were much, much better than Dawson's were, he was still more valuable for his team, despite having less PAs. In other words, Clark made up for having less PAs by having more productive PAs.

 

Look at it this way, Clark's WAR was 6.5, while Dawson's was only 2.7. That takes the PA into consideration too.

I guess the best way of saying it is that I think total production is what matters most. I don't care if a guy was batting .350 and averaged an RBI a game if he only played 95 games. A guy who batted .310 and netted 120 RBI would be more valuable in this instance, of course I know there are numerous other numbers and positional considerations that go into the equation but just trying to provide an example.

 

Now I don't know much about Clark versus Dawson in that year but if Clark produced more or equal in the time that he played, I could understand it.

I fully understand the point you are trying to make, but it does not apply to a Dawson/Clark comparison. In this case the discrepancy in PA did not hurt Clark's value much, because his stats were that much better.

 

WAR and probably any other statistic measure shows that Clark's numbers made him more valuable despite the difference in PA. Clark produced more, plain and simple. Dawson's value is hundred by his rather mediocre OBP that year. He hit a lot of home runs, but he still made a lot of outs.

 

If you are still going to try to argue otherwise, you'll need to make a statistical argument.

I'm not sure Jack Clark vs. Andre Dawson should be the best example here, as there were probably 8 other players who played in more games than Clark and were more productive than Dawson. Darryl Strawberry, Tim Raines, Eric Davis, and Tony Gwynn all would have been far finer choices for the award, not to mention Dale Murphy, a two-time winner who finished 11th despite having his finest season yet.

 

Given that Jack Clark played in only 81% of his games, he would have to have been a lot better than he was, relative to the other contenders, to make up for it. Putting it as Dawson vs. Clark makes it seem like they were the only option; in reality, neither was one of the 5 best options, all things considered.

You are simply just taking the names with better WARs. Some of them only a few tenths of a point higher.

 

Absolutely there are players with higher statistical value, but that's not what I'm arguing here. My point was foremost to recognize that Dawson was a bad choice for MVP simply based on productivity (and not that he was on a last place team).

 

However, while I believe WAR has a firm place in making a decision, it's not the only determining factor. I don't believe in simply naming the MVP based upon the highest WAR player.

 

In Clark's case, the fact that he was an essential bat for an offensively power-less team that went on to win a tight division race absolutely factors into the decision making process. My guess is that voters at this time were taking this into account as well, because Clark placed third in the voting that year. Obviously they weren't aware of WAR or any similar metric at the time, but they were aware that he had fewer PAs than the names you mentioned.